Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

Yes...as I have stated many times here....it is like the two birds in the Upanishads. Initially there are two birds. They appear different. One looks up to the other as Divine. But they eventually merge. After that there is no difference.

God is only a manner of looking up to something that you want to achieve. Once it is achieved there is no God. 'Divinity' is just a way of differentiating it from the Animal.  We are constantly a mix of animal and divine.

'The Divine' is not some distant supernatural being. I am not even sure if there is any equivalent word in Sanskrit.

No matter how many times I've read this post of your's Sriram I can only come to one conclusion and that conclusion of mine isn't dismiss able with some kind of both knowing inward smile or air of superiority either, a gigantic amount of snake oil is sold in a similar way.

I suspect you don't understand the implied/suggested knowledge within this post of yours any more than anyone else does.

There's an old saying that's attributable to our British army even though it may well be that our soldiers are not well renown for their contributions to the greater works of philosophical thinking but I do think in this case this post of yours can be readily filed under 'Bullshit Baffles Brains' category.

Nonsense!

Regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

Don't be silly.  Miracles are magic by another name, is all.  We are mostly adults in this room I would have thought, you will not impress with a disguised appeal to regress back to childhood fantasy beliefs.  We need evidence and reason, that is what we respond to.

We are so surrounded by God's miraculous creation that we take it all for granted and deem it to be natural, using our God given freedom to think up natural explanations.

You have the freedom to deny your gift of free will, but in consciously denying it you proffer evidence of its existence.

I came to the logical conclusion that every conscious choice we make is a miracle, because physical explanations inevitably rely on reactions defined by past events, which denies us any consciously driven choice.  A logical conclusion which I later found to be confirmed by CS Lewis in his book, Miracles.

[SusanDoris]

We are so surrounded by God's miraculous creation that we take it all for granted and deem it to be natural, using our God given freedom to think up natural explanations.

You have the freedom to deny your gift of free will, but in consciously denying it you proffer evidence of its existence.

I came to the logical conclusion that every conscious choice we make is a miracle, because physical explanations inevitably rely on reactions defined by past events, which denies us any consciously driven choice.  A logical conclusion which I later found to be confirmed by CS Lewis in his book, Miracles.

Reading that is like trying to wade through candyfloss ...

[torridon]

We are so surrounded by God's miraculous creation that we take it all for granted and deem it to be natural, using our God given freedom to think up natural explanations.

You have the freedom to deny your gift of free will, but in consciously denying it you proffer evidence of its existence.

I came to the logical conclusion that every conscious choice we make is a miracle, because physical explanations inevitably rely on reactions defined by past events, which denies us any consciously driven choice.  A logical conclusion which I later found to be confirmed by CS Lewis in his book, Miracles.

I haven't demonstrated any freedom, I have demonstrated reasoning, a different thing altogether. I demonstrated reasoning because I wanted to demonstrate reasoning, hence my actions are consistent with the view that we act on our desires but we cannot choose which desires to have.

Your illogic is not logic; there is nothing logical about miracles; they would defy logic, by definition.  Your position is irrational, unreasonable, not logical, therefore clearly wrong. 

Think things through; if you believe in God then you must believe that he gave you the power with which to reason.  Collapsing back into magical thinking is the abandonment of god-given reasoning.

[Stranger]

And round and round and round the baseless assertions go...

You have the freedom to deny your gift of free will, but in consciously denying it you proffer evidence of its existence.

Our freedom to make choices is not evidence for your self-contradictory notion of freedom. You are, in effect, lying.

I came to the logical conclusion that every conscious choice we make is a miracle, because physical explanations inevitably rely on reactions defined by past events...

For what seems like the ten thousandth time: it's a logical constraint not a physical one: you can't have a choice that isn't entirely due pre-existing reasons without some part of it being for no reason (random).

...which denies us any consciously driven choice.

Baseless assertion.

A logical conclusion which I later found to be confirmed by CS Lewis in his book, Miracles.

Neither you nor Lewis can claim that a conclusion that is logically impossible can be arrived at logically. I have no idea how Lewis put his argument but logic has been totally lacking in your 'arguments'.

Your version of 'freedom' (F) leads directly to the conclusion that the statement "free choices are made entirely due to pre-existing reasons" (S), must be both true and false. So we have F implies S and not S or (F ⇒ (S ∧ ¬S)), so we can directly conclude not F because ((F ⇒ (S ∧ ¬S)) ⇒ ¬F) is a logical tautology.

[Alan Burns]

Think things through; if you believe in God then you must believe that he gave you the power with which to reason.  Collapsing back into magical thinking is the abandonment of god-given reasoning.

But the power I have to think things though leads to the inevitable conclusion that the process of thinking things through is consciously driven, step by step.  A driving process which can't possibly be derived from uncontrollable physically defined reactions.  Controlled conscious thought itself is beyond any physical explanation.  Try thinking about it.

[torridon]

But the power I have to think things though leads to the inevitable conclusion that the process of thinking things through is consciously driven, step by step.  A driving process which can't possibly be derived from uncontrollable physically defined reactions.  Controlled conscious thought itself is beyond any physical explanation.  Try thinking about it.

That is not an inevitable conclusion at all, and the fact that you can come up with that only reveals you haven't been reading the posts, this material has been covered so many times already.  Conscious thoughts do not spring out of nowhere, they are formed from something prior; thoughts are triggered by prior thoughts and other mental events and 'fully formed thoughts' as in a line of reasoning all have a derivation through the subliminal processes of consciousness.  All mental phenomena have origins, nothing happens in minds for absolutely no reason, there is always neurological process involved and the conscious thoughts we have are the outcome of those processes.

[Alan Burns]

That is not an inevitable conclusion at all, and the fact that you can come up with that only reveals you haven't been reading the posts, this material has been covered so many times already.  Conscious thoughts do not spring out of nowhere, they are formed from something prior; thoughts are triggered by prior thoughts and other mental events and 'fully formed thoughts' as in a line of reasoning all have a derivation through the subliminal processes of consciousness.  All mental phenomena have origins, nothing happens in minds for absolutely no reason, there is always neurological process involved and the conscious thoughts we have are the outcome of those processes.

Yes, our thought processes can be triggered by mental events, but ask yourself,  - do we have conscious control over these events?

Why do you apparently deny the ability of human free will to consciously direct our thought processes

[Stranger]

Yes, our thought processes can be triggered by mental events, but ask yourself,  - do we have conscious control over these events?

It makes no bleedin' difference to the logic if it's conscious or not. Either what you decide to do is entirely because of pre-existing reasons or it isn't (and it involves some randomness).

"Conscious control" isn't a magic spell that makes the logic go away.

[torridon]

Yes, our thought processes can be triggered by mental events, but ask yourself,  - do we have conscious control over these events?

Why do you apparently deny the ability of human free will to consciously direct our thought processes

The extent that we can 'consciously direct our thought processes' is itself a thought process.  You seem stuck with a mental block here, as if somehow 'we' are separate from our minds such that we can control 'our' minds.  There is no separation, we are our minds. 

I can control my thoughts in the simplistic sense of choosing to contemplate some or other issue, but that choice does not arise in isolation, it arises within our mind out of the competition between all our thoughts and inclinations. So if I decide to spend two hours thinking about Poland rather than watching Love Island that would be because the desire to think about Poland was the more attractive option, for whatever reason. I cannot force myself to want to watch Love Island if I don't want to.  I am merely acting out desires that I have no control over.

[Alan Burns]

It makes no bleedin' difference to the logic if it's conscious or not. Either what you decide to do is entirely because of pre-existing reasons or it isn't (and it involves some randomness).

"Conscious control" isn't a magic spell that makes the logic go away.

Why do you insist on pre-existing reasons to define choice?
By definition, pre-existing reasons exist in the past, not the present.
Can you not conceive of an existing reason, generated simply by conscious willpower?

[Alan Burns]

The extent that we can 'consciously direct our thought processes' is itself a thought process.  You seem stuck with a mental block here, as if somehow 'we' are separate from our minds such that we can control 'our' minds.  There is no separation, we are our minds. 

I can control my thoughts in the simplistic sense of choosing to contemplate some or other issue, but that choice does not arise in isolation, it arises within our mind out of the competition between all our thoughts and inclinations. So if I decide to spend two hours thinking about Poland rather than watching Love Island that would be because the desire to think about Poland was the more attractive option, for whatever reason. I cannot force myself to want to watch Love Island if I don't want to.  I am merely acting out desires that I have no control over.

But if you had control over how to indulge your desires, you would not be able to discern it with the simplistic way you try to analyse it.

It is quite obvious that once a conscious choice is made, at the instant we make it, that is what we want to do.  But this does not imply that we have no control over choosing what we actually did.

[Sebastian Toe]

Can you not conceive of an existing reason, generated simply by conscious willpower?

Please give an example of an "existing reason".

[Stranger]

Why do you insist on pre-existing reasons to define choice.
By definition, pre-existing reasons exist in the past, not the present.

Yes, and as I keep on pointing out, if you generate a 'reason' in the present that isn't itself due to pre-existing reasons, then it must be for no reason - which means that it's random.

Can you not conceive of an existing reason, generated simply by conscious willpower?

No because it's logically incoherent. "Conscious willpower" isn't a magic spell that makes the logic go away either. Either you consciously will something for reasons (that by definition must already exist) or, to some extent, for no reason.

Every aspect of a choice must either have a reason or not. We are talking about how conscious will comes to make its choice, you can't escape the logic my saying "simply by conscious willpower" that's evading the point, not addressing it.

[Stranger]

It is quite obvious that once a conscious choice is made, at the instant we make it, that is what we want to do.  But this does not imply that we have no control over choosing what we actually did.

Yes, we have control but we are talking about how we make up our minds.

You can't have control unless you make a choice and you can't make a choice (or any part of a choice) for no (already existing) reason unless it's random.

[Gordon]

Why do you insist on pre-existing reasons to define choice.
By definition, pre-existing reasons exist in the past, not the present.
Can you not conceive of an existing reason, generated simply by conscious willpower?

My two great food hates are mayonnaise and pineapple: noxious substances both, and regard both as being unfit for human consumption. So, when faced with either of these in, say, a restaurant I simply reject them out of hand without needing to decide - I am making a choice though in rejecting them, but for reasons that are pre-existing and require no conscious review. 

Thing is I can't recall ever having to make a conscious decision to actively dislike these things: they just revolt me. 

[Alan Burns]

Yes, and as I keep on pointing out, if you generate a 'reason' in the present that isn't itself due to pre-existing reasons, then it must be for no reason - which means that it's random.

No because it's logically incoherent. "Conscious willpower" isn't a magic spell that makes the logic go away either. Either you consciously will something for reasons (that by definition must already exist) or, to some extent, for no reason.

Every aspect of a choice must either have a reason or not. We are talking about how conscious will comes to make its choice, you can't escape the logic my saying "simply by conscious willpower" that's evading the point, not addressing it.

But my conscious awareness allows me to contemplate reasons before making a consciously driven choice.  The reasons alone do not drive my choice.  I have control over the choice - a control which is not possible if my brain is entirely driven by uncontrollable physically defined events.  And this last sentence is entirely relevant to the point I am making which is that there is more to consciously driven choices than physically predefined chains of cause and effect.

[Alan Burns]

My two great food hates are mayonnaise and pineapple: noxious substances both, and regard both as being unfit for human consumption. So, when faced with either of these in, say, a restaurant I simply reject them out of hand without needing to decide - I am making a choice though in rejecting them, but for reasons that are pre-existing and require no conscious review. 

Thing is I can't recall ever having to make a conscious decision to actively dislike these things: they just revolt me.

But you still have the capability to override your pre existing dislike of these and choose to eat them if you so wish (even if you don't like the taste).  It is your choice.

[Stranger]

But my conscious awareness allows me to contemplate reasons before making a consciously driven choice.  The reasons alone do not drive my choice.

Yes - but it's the process of contemplation that we are talking about: how that process arrives at its conclusion. Either your final, consciously contemplated consideration of the reasons makes a final choice for reasons (that may be just the sort of person you are, the state of mind at the time, previous experience, and so on) or, to some extent, for no reason (random).

You keep on trying to exclude yourself from the logic of the situation. It is how the internal mechanisms of conscious contemplation works that is the point.

I have control over the choice - a control which is not possible if my brain is entirely driven by uncontrollable physically defined events.  And this last sentence is entirely relevant to the point I am making which is that there is more to consciously driven choices than physically predefined chains of cause and effect.

This continued insistence just shows you haven't understood what is being said to you. It has nothing at all to do with the physical.

You have said exactly nothing that excludes a purely physical explanation and the limitations of the physical that you keep harping on about are actually logical limitations that would have to apply anyway.

[torridon]

But if you had control over how to indulge your desires, you would not be able to discern it with the simplistic way you try to analyse it.

It is quite obvious that once a conscious choice is made, at the instant we make it, that is what we want to do.  But this does not imply that we have no control over choosing what we actually did.

A choice made is always the option that we most want at the time. We are incapable of wanting something we don't want. Our minds continually discern the optimal path to take at any moment. So although it might feel like we have control over choosing what to do, we do not have control over the desires that inform that choice and we are really just identifying, not choosing, that optimal path at every moment.

[Gordon]

But you still have the capability to override your pre existing dislike of these and choose to eat them if you so wish (even if you don't like the taste).  It is your choice.

I don't think I do - it seems there are some things that simply aren't chosen, such as established wants or dislikes: after all, I didn't ever make a conscious choice to dislike either mayonnaise or pineapple in the first place. 

[torridon]

But you still have the capability to override your pre existing dislike of these and choose to eat them if you so wish (even if you don't like the taste).  It is your choice.

Yes but in that case he ate it because if so wished. If he so wished implies a desire, and we do not, can not, desire things we do not desire, we do not wish for things that we do not wish for; we have no control over them, we merely act on them.

[Alan Burns]

Yes but in that case he ate it because if so wished. If he so wished implies a desire, and we do not, can not, desire things we do not desire, we do not wish for things that we do not wish for; we have no control over them, we merely act on them.

But as I said previously, the fact that we do something is not sufficient evidence to claim that it was the only possible option over which we had no choice.  It is what we consciously chose to do at that moment in time, but this fact does not in itself imply that we had no choice in what we did.

[Alan Burns]

I don't think I do - it seems there are some things that simply aren't chosen, such as established wants or dislikes: after all, I didn't ever make a conscious choice to dislike either mayonnaise or pineapple in the first place.

Yes, we can't choose our likes and dislikes.  But we still have the God given freedom to override these to do something just because we consciously choose to do it.

[Alan Burns]

Yes - but it's the process of contemplation that we are talking about: how that process arrives at its conclusion. Either your final, consciously contemplated consideration of the reasons makes a final choice for reasons (that may be just the sort of person you are, the state of mind at the time, previous experience, and so on) or, to some extent, for no reason (random).

You keep on trying to exclude yourself from the logic of the situation. It is how the internal mechanisms of conscious contemplation works that is the point.

This continued insistence just shows you haven't understood what is being said to you. It has nothing at all to do with the physical.

You have said exactly nothing that excludes a purely physical explanation and the limitations of the physical that you keep harping on about are actually logical limitations that would have to apply anyway.

But your phrase "It is how the internal mechanisms of conscious contemplation works" implies that you are looking at conscious contemplation as just a physically driven mechanistic process over which we can have no control.  My perception of reality begs to differ with this simplistic view.